Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7970

Bill Overview

Title: Ocean Regional Opportunity and Innovation Act of 2022

Description: This bill directs the Department of Commerce to designate at least seven entities as Ocean Innovation Clusters. Ocean Innovation Clusters are hubs of operation and entrepreneurship for private, public, and academic stakeholders to collaborate on opportunities to promote and enhance the maritime industry. In designating entities, Commerce shall prioritize entities with a history of supporting cross-sector growth and development of the Blue Economy. Additionally, Commerce must designate at least one Ocean Innovation Cluster in (1) each of the regions covered by the five regional offices of the National Marine Fisheries Service, (2) the Great Lakes region, and (3) the Gulf of Mexico region. Commerce may award competitive grants for the establishment, operation, and administration of Ocean Innovation Clusters.

Sponsors: Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals involved in or impacted by the maritime industry, particularly in regions with Ocean Innovation Clusters

Estimated Size: 2000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Marine Biologist (Seattle, WA)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The Ocean Innovation Clusters could provide much-needed funding for collaborative research projects.
  • Increased connections with industry partners may bring innovations and new ecological solutions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 7

Fisheries Manager (Boston, MA)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Clusters may offer innovative solutions and technical advancements for sustainable practices.
  • Collaboration is key to maintaining New England's rich fishing heritage amid environmental challenges.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Shipbuilding Executive (Duluth, MN)

Age: 52 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased innovation could revitalize the Great Lakes shipping industry.
  • Potential for new business models and practices, though success will depend on effective execution of cluster initiatives.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Policy Analyst (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Clusters should enhance the region's economic and ecological resilience through innovation.
  • It's crucial to ensure equitable distribution of resources and opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 6

Marine Engineer (Miami, FL)

Age: 28 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The clusters are a fantastic opportunity for innovation and technology adoption.
  • Long-term industry partnerships fostered by the clusters will enhance Florida's technology leadership in the maritime sector.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 10 8
Year 20 9 8

Oil and Gas Exploration Manager (Houston, TX)

Age: 65 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Uncertainty whether clusters will impact oil-focused operations significantly.
  • However, environmental enhancements might indirectly benefit operations by improving public perception.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Environmental Science Graduate Student (Anchorage, AK)

Age: 24 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Clusters can provide research funding and will likely bring new partners interested in Arctic exploration and preservation.
  • Collaborations could foster sustainable development practices in regional policy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Port Authority Planner (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Clusters may introduce advanced tools for logistics efficiency and sustainability in ports.
  • Positive effects anticipated for future planning and operational models.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

College Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Clusters around the Great Lakes could lead to internships and job opportunities related to freshwater systems.
  • A practical approach to solving water-related challenges is essential for career readiness.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Small Business Owner (Savannah, GA)

Age: 49 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Clusters might provide opportunities for expanding service offerings and accessing new clientele through technical collaboration.
  • Initial skepticism about resource distribution and local benefit emphasis.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)

Year 2: $95000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $115000000)

Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)

Year 5: $85000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $105000000)

Year 10: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)

Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)

Key Considerations